scanner for film and negative

[erick.boileau]

I am looking for a very good scanner for film and negative (B&W) which one will you suggest ?

what about Nikon Super Coolscan 9000 ED  ?

thank you

[FrançoisTT]

You should perhaps take a look at an Imacon scan, really better.
Imacon "343" for 35mm and 120 (up to panoramique 6x17cm).

[erick.boileau]

Imacon "343" ?
I look

thank you

[evgeny]

I used Nikon 5000 for 35mm, sold it at about the price of purchase, and bought Nikon 9000 for 120 film.

I heard that more expensive drum scanners are better, but for my needs the Nikon 9000 performs quite well. I separately bought a 120 glass holder to scan film very flat.

[Frank Doorhof]

Price/quality the Epson V700 but add a betterscanning tranny for MF film.

[CaptainHook]

add a betterscanning tranny for MF film.

Any examples..? Do you mean the "wet" mount/holder?

Do you have the v700 Frank?
I've been looking at all options.
v750/Nikon 9000/Imacon/etc/etc.

Would love to see some scans if you can.

[Frank Doorhof]

Hi,
The normal better scanning tranny not the wetmount.

I use the V700 myself indeed.
If you want samples please mail me, they are a bit too big to post here

But this a sample:

[narikin]

I HIGHLY recommend the Nikon 9000, with a wet mount tray for any MF size - from 6x45 to 6x9 it is amazing in its results, and great value.

I've had drum, Imacon and Nikon scans side by side and you can't tell any difference even with the most critical eye, providing you wet mount the film (easy and quick - takes about 30 seconds total)

6x7: ~260Mb in 8bit, ~520Mb in 16bit.

look at Yahoo Groups Coolscan 8000/ 9000 forum for a lot of background info.

[CaptainHook]

Hi,
The normal better scanning tranny not the wetmount.

Ahh, found it. I had found this before but didn't "take in" the website address or name.
http://www.betterscanning.com/scanning/mstation.html

The prices indicate a 'fluid' and 'fluid OR dry' mounting option.
You're using the dry? How come?

Your scan looks pretty good at web size but would like to see more
and how much was 'recovered' in retouching? I will take you up on your
offer of email. Thanks.
(Also found your forum post on the v700 on your website..)

[Frank Doorhof]

Hi,
The post you see above is WITHOUT any retouching, it's just plain placed on the tranny and scanned.

I use the dry mount indeed.
I'm not scanning that much and decided that I can always go to the wetmount later.

[CaptainHook]

Hi,
The post you see above is WITHOUT any retouching, it's just plain placed on the tranny and scanned.

No sharpening??
Even at websize, that's pretty impressive for a flatbed. I thought for sure you had
at least sharpened.

[Richard Boyle]

gone into the wilds of nebraska.

[uaiomex]

Or you may try this one:
www.scanscience.com
A different aproach. See which one suits you better.

Eduardo

Ahh, found it. I had found this before but didn't "take in" the website address or name.
http://www.betterscanning.com/scanning/mstation.html

The prices indicate a 'fluid' and 'fluid OR dry' mounting option.
You're using the dry? How come?

Your scan looks pretty good at web size but would like to see more
and how much was 'recovered' in retouching? I will take you up on your
offer of email. Thanks.
(Also found your forum post on the v700 on your website..)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=212948\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[James Godman]

I've been using my Imacon for about 5 years, and its been fantastic.  Flatbeds will not give you the best results.

[Rob C]

I've been using my Imacon for about 5 years, and its been fantastic.  Flatbeds will not give you the best results.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=213027\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I suppose you are right about flatbeds, but there is always the huge problem of economics to consider too.

If I knew when I had my Hasselblads what I know now, I would still have them;  the money spent on swapping about between them and other 120 formats and back to 35mm film and then adding in Nikon digital would have got me an Imacon. Yep, perfect retrospective 20-20!

Rob C

[Graham Mitchell]

Another vote for the Imacon scanners. I've used the 848 and was very happy.

I've used Heidelberg and Dainippon drum scanners in the past and would never want to go back to oil mounting (although the results were great of course).

[narikin]

The IMACON scanners are far above the Nikon and Epson scanners.  They are very close to drum scan quality.

I own an Imacon and continue to shoot medium format color neg film (portra) and am very pleased with the Imacon and the Flexcolor software.  The profiles are very good.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=213006\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

sorry, but I respectfully disagree.

the Nikon 9000 with a fluid tray is a stunning scanner for MF. Good software (Nikonscan 4 or Vuescan), Nikon Optics, totally planar flat films on glass with fluid mounting mean perfect edge to edge focus.

I have had Imacon, Heidlberg Tango and Nikon scans of the same film done and the Nikon one matched all of them. not a bit inferior. I am fortunate enough to have the resources to buy any of these, including a drum scanner, but cannot see a reason to do so.

totally agree that all consumer level flatbeds are not of this standard (there are serious pro flatbeds, costing $40,000, but lets leave that out of the discussion)

be careful doing comparisons as Imacon (and some drum scanners) has sharpening applied to its outputs even if set to 0. it has to be set to some weird number like -87 to actually get no sharpening, so be very careful before you compare, that it is like for like unsharpened scans...

[hubell]

be careful doing comparisons as Imacon (and some drum scanners) has sharpening applied to its outputs even if set to 0. it has to be set to some weird number like -87 to actually get no sharpening, so be very careful before you compare, that it is like for like unsharpened scans...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=213059\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes, you have to set sharpening to -120 in the Imacon  software to turn off USM completely. It's  like Capture One software in that respect, where setting USM to zero does NOT turn it off completely.

[CaptainHook]

I have had Imacon, Heidlberg Tango and Nikon scans of the same film done and the Nikon one matched all of them. not a bit inferior.

Can you post examples?
I don't doubt flatbeds won't give the best results.
I'm just trying to find out if the price difference is worth it to me.

[Jeff-Grant]

Can you post examples?
I don't doubt flatbeds won't give the best results.
I'm just trying to find out if the price difference is worth it to me.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=213074\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

My experience is a few years old now but, I suspect, still valid. Prior to buying an Imacon Flextight Photo, I also tried the Nikon. It was a chalk and cheese comparison once you started to get into darker areas. The Imacon produces a very clean file, end of story. The price for the Imacon was twice the Nikon but I have never regretted the decision.